|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 12:45:21 GMT -5
Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other."  is important. How exactly is this meant? Is Intelligence running the show, quite literally? In complete control? As far as I know you haven't spoken to this directly (control). It's important. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 3, 2024 13:21:45 GMT -5
I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." is important. How exactly is this meant? Is Intelligence running the show, quite literally? In complete control? As far as I know you haven't spoken to this directly (control). It's important. Well, the idea of control is a dualistic idea, and it implies both a controller and that which is controlled. The truth, however, is not dualistic, and all we can do with words is point to that which is beyond language and conception. With words we can only say that the intelligence of THIS is doing everything that's done, and that the vast intelligence of THIS can be directly apprehended via a CC, but there's no separate entity involved in that kind of seeing. Somehow THIS, via a human, can directly apprehend Itself (which is literally mind-boggling), and that kind of seeing informs the mind/intellect. Last night, just before going to bed, I looked at an amaryllis plant that someone gave us at Christmas. There were two large blossoms and a bud that was still a bud but about to open. This morning when I got up the bud had become a large blossom overnight. Everything is like that--a spontaneous blossoming of various forms into other forms, and there is an inconceivable "intelligence," for lack of a better word, that underlies everything that's happening. If we want to say that that intelligence is in control, then, yes, it controls everything. It's a little more accurate, however, to say that THIS unfolds, much like the flower blossoms, rather than to say that it "controls" simply because the word "control" implies twoness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 13:47:27 GMT -5
This is important. How exactly is this meant? Is Intelligence running the show, quite literally? In complete control? As far as I know you haven't spoken to this directly (control). It's important. Well, the idea of control is a dualistic idea, and it implies both a controller and that which is controlled. The truth, however, is not dualistic, and all we can do with words is point to that which is beyond language and conception. With words we can only say that the intelligence of THIS is doing everything that's done, and that the vast intelligence of THIS can be directly apprehended via a CC, but there's no separate entity involved in that kind of seeing. Somehow THIS, via a human, can directly apprehend Itself (which is literally mind-blowing), and that kind of seeing informs the mind/intellect. Last night, just before going to bed, I looked at an amaryllis plant that someone gave us at Christmas. There were two large blossoms and a bud that was still a bud but about to open. This morning when I got up the bud had become a large blossom overnight. Everything is like that--a spontaneous blossoming of various forms into other forms, and there is an inconceivable "intelligence," for lack of a better word, that underlies everything that's happening. If we want to say that that intelligence is in control, then, yes, it controls everything. It's a little more accurate, however, to say that THIS unfolds, much like the flower blossoms, rather than to say that it "controls" simply because the word "control" implies twoness. OK. I just didn't recall you using language like running the show before. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 3, 2024 14:19:59 GMT -5
I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? I consider ND in terms of simultaneity. There is an aspect of our being that is always here, always now. The conceptualizing mind is never here now (except in a higher state of consciousness, which nothing can obstruct). I think of thoughts or emotions as horses that wander up. They are fine if they just wander up and then wander away. But we usually get on them and ride off. We *disappear* into the thought or emotion. That means into the past or the future, that means not now, not here. (That means not-present, not-here). That means no simultaneity, no ND. It doesn't matter where the here and now, is. Where depends upon our capacity to take in What Is (here and now). For sdp it's about experience and consciousness, I don't get realization unless realization means understanding. Nobody has ever answered men that question. (It seems it doesn't, as understanding is mind-oriented, ends up as mind-oriented. But it is at least a cousin, because, by definition, once you understand something, that never changes). What is simultaneous? Yes, conceptualizing mind is always a layer dreamt up (via conditioned mind) within What Is already Whole. Realization is prior to conceptualizing mind's layers of understanding. I guess some 'realizations' can stretch the mind's capacity, but SR/TR/Realizing THAT is of a different order. Technically, I'd use 'realization' in these contextual discussions very differently than insight, epiphany, intuition, woowoo, etc... however profound. The mind is wrestling with what it knows, with what it can logically formulate to learn something more, with what it wants to control, with wanting to learn something more in order to realize something vaster than it will ever be...a tool for relatively understanding the relative world. Once THAT is realized, everything that the mind once thought to be 'real', here and now, or even practical gets kinda derailed for bit and re-prioritized. Can something be realized and then fall back into ignorance? Yes, due to the momentum and the mind's fuggery of thinking it has achieved something and/or taking credit. I reckon it's a normal feature presentation. Big questions of cause-and-effect, existence, free will, absolute-vs-relative, etc are just a few examples of what's grappled with. Indeed, the revision of mind's conditioned state can take time to work through, bringing it to heed as it is informed. Does that make sense? I wouldn't blame you if it didn't. It does sound kind of magical fairy dusty in certain logical senses when playing within the limitations of concepts. We know where the causes of that conclusion arise, but they ain't HERE. Be still, let the universe collapse and surrender, and Know What YOU actually are. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 14:41:54 GMT -5
I consider ND in terms of simultaneity. There is an aspect of our being that is always here, always now. The conceptualizing mind is never here now (except in a higher state of consciousness, which nothing can obstruct). I think of thoughts or emotions as horses that wander up. They are fine if they just wander up and then wander away. But we usually get on them and ride off. We *disappear* into the thought or emotion. That means into the past or the future, that means not now, not here. (That means not-present, not-here). That means no simultaneity, no ND. It doesn't matter where the here and now, is. Where depends upon our capacity to take in What Is (here and now). For sdp it's about experience and consciousness, I don't get realization unless realization means understanding. Nobody has ever answered men that question. (It seems it doesn't, as understanding is mind-oriented, ends up as mind-oriented. But it is at least a cousin, because, by definition, once you understand something, that never changes). What is simultaneous? Yes, conceptualizing mind is always a layer dreamt up (via conditioned mind) within What Is already Whole. Realization is prior to conceptualizing mind's layers of understanding. I guess some 'realizations' can stretch the mind's capacity, but SR/TR/Realizing THAT is of a different order. Technically, I'd use 'realization' in these contextual discussions very differently than insight, epiphany, intuition, woowoo, etc... however profound. The mind is wrestling with what it knows, with what it can logically formulate to learn something more, with what it wants to control, with wanting to learn something more in order to realize something vaster than it will ever be...a tool for relatively understanding the relative world. Once THAT is realized, everything that the mind once thought to be 'real', here and now, or even practical gets kinda derailed for bit and re-prioritized. Can something be realized and then fall back into ignorance? Yes, due to the momentum and the mind's fuggery of thinking it has achieved something and/or taking credit. I reckon it's a normal feature presentation. Big questions of cause-and-effect, existence, free will, absolute-vs-relative, etc are just a few examples of what's grappled with. Indeed, the revision of mind's conditioned state can take time to work through, bringing it to heed as it is informed. Does that make sense? I wouldn't blame you if it didn't. It does sound kind of magical fairy dusty in certain logical senses when playing within the limitations of concepts. We know where the causes of that conclusion arise, but they ain't HERE. Be still, let the universe collapse and surrender, and Know What YOU actually are. I have not had that sort of orientation for 47 years, since I began with the Gurdjieff teaching, almost 48 years. Our teacher used to call the ordinary mind-the conceptualizing mind, our little pea brain. So I have a whole different orientation. I'm light years past this. Are you asking what is simultaneous, as in what does it mean? I would suppose not, it's not really complicated. Are you asking: What ~two~ things are simultaneous? I will give an example. Ever hit a baseball? Played in HS? In baseball pitching is pretty much everything, probably 90% of the game. Speed is one thing. You have to swing the bat so that it is simultaneous bat-over-the-plate with the ball over the plate. You can't swing to early or to late, you will miss the ball. And then you have the strike zone, about 13 inches wide, about 3 feet vertically. So it's not only timing but the level of the bat swing to the placement of the ball. Now, if you lose your focus, if your mind wanders during the pitch, it would just be luck to hit the ball. Say I want to observe my bat swing while swinging at a pitch. My mind has to be here, now, focused on only one thing. If I am thinking about striking out last time, I'm not ~here~, now. If I'm thinking about that beer after the game, I'm not ~here~, now. So simultaneous means mind-attention is in the present moment, now...and now...and now...and now... That's what ND means to sdp. Ayya Khema said that: Being mindful means that mind and body are in the same place. page 9, Know Where You're Going, A Complete Buddhist Guide to Meditation, Faith, and Everyday Transcendence, 1990 (As, When the Iron Eagle Flies) 2014, that's simultaneity. It's like that. Basically, if you're thinking (conceptualizing), it's not simultaneity can't-be, mind is distracted, mind is elsewhere. The monkey mind, another example, can't be simultaneous to basically anything. Another example, ADD, mind can't be simultaneous to reading a book. Another example, E's split-mind. There's this vast field of changing-movement, the flow. If we're stuck in our head, which most people are, we're not in the flow. Most people *swing too early or swing too late*. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 3, 2024 14:51:10 GMT -5
What is simultaneous? Yes, conceptualizing mind is always a layer dreamt up (via conditioned mind) within What Is already Whole. Realization is prior to conceptualizing mind's layers of understanding. I guess some 'realizations' can stretch the mind's capacity, but SR/TR/Realizing THAT is of a different order. Technically, I'd use 'realization' in these contextual discussions very differently than insight, epiphany, intuition, woowoo, etc... however profound. The mind is wrestling with what it knows, with what it can logically formulate to learn something more, with what it wants to control, with wanting to learn something more in order to realize something vaster than it will ever be...a tool for relatively understanding the relative world. Once THAT is realized, everything that the mind once thought to be 'real', here and now, or even practical gets kinda derailed for bit and re-prioritized. Can something be realized and then fall back into ignorance? Yes, due to the momentum and the mind's fuggery of thinking it has achieved something and/or taking credit. I reckon it's a normal feature presentation. Big questions of cause-and-effect, existence, free will, absolute-vs-relative, etc are just a few examples of what's grappled with. Indeed, the revision of mind's conditioned state can take time to work through, bringing it to heed as it is informed. Does that make sense? I wouldn't blame you if it didn't. It does sound kind of magical fairy dusty in certain logical senses when playing within the limitations of concepts. We know where the causes of that conclusion arise, but they ain't HERE. Be still, let the universe collapse and surrender, and Know What YOU actually are. I have not had that sort of orientation for 47 years, since I began with the Gurdjieff teaching, almost 48 years. Our teacher used to call the ordinary mind, the conceptualizing mind, our little pea brain. So I have a whole different orientation. I'm light years past this. Love the confidence. Would this be more of the secret orientation that you cannot speak about and like to dance around conceptually?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 15:54:37 GMT -5
I have not had that sort of orientation for 47 years, since I began with the Gurdjieff teaching, almost 48 years. Our teacher used to call the ordinary mind, the conceptualizing mind, our little pea brain. So I have a whole different orientation. I'm light years past this. Love the confidence. Would this be more of the secret orientation that you cannot speak about and like to dance around conceptually? I've written about a great deal, map-wise. Almost everything I write, I pause to check experience, and then I write from experience. Sometimes, deep into the weeds, from a map-only, but that usually means from my teacher-as-example. IOW, anything I write is a map, it's the nature of language, words. If you get ATA-T, that's basically a practice. It's virtually identical to sensing, which I was taught at my first meeting, it was called noticing. But it's a preliminary practice, I didn't get the practices self-remembering and self-observation until six months later, meetings every week. Preparatory practices can be written about. First meeting, you can notice the shapes of material objects, you can notice sounds, you can notice colors, you can notice tension in the body. ATA is a very precise description (we were just told: notice). We learned the ATA part and then later the -T part, ourselves, by doing, by trying. We were never given more unless we showed we were practicing what we were already given. For the first six months new people had to leave meetings early while the others discussed the ~real~ practices. Being given the practices self-remembering and self-observation, is like being given a recipe. Think Colonel Sanders, who never tells anyone his 13 secret spices. But you really only learn by constantly trying to bake cakes. And this links back to Chuang Tzu's Woodwright (story). And this connects to ZD's new physicist guy, Federico Fa ggin, most excellent. "You can know consciousness only in yourself", is a direct quote from Gurdjieff But the purpose of the practices are to save energy and transform energy. Everything is centered around energy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2024 19:22:23 GMT -5
I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." I might agree, but at some point there's noone or no-thing that needs informing since "informing" means tranferring information. And ultimately there was never informing because there never was an informer versus an informed. That's the crux of the delusion. I talk to the dead every night when they come visit and try to "inform" them that we're merely "imagined." That our separateness, hence the need to talk to each other is a delusion. They take it about as well as Tenka does. They think I'm daft. Imagine that. Then call it "surprising", as in, the individuated mind is surprised to notice an absence. I could re-tell a tale involving E' and a different forum many years ago that would exemplify.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 3, 2024 19:45:35 GMT -5
Love the confidence. Would this be more of the secret orientation that you cannot speak about and like to dance around conceptually? I've written about a great deal, map-wise. Almost everything I write, I pause to check experience, and then I write from experience. Sometimes, deep into the weeds, from a map-only, but that usually means from my teacher-as-example. IOW, anything I write is a map, it's the nature of language, words. If you get ATA-T, that's basically a practice. It's virtually identical to sensing, which I was taught at my first meeting, it was called noticing. But it's a preliminary practice, I didn't get the practices self-remembering and self-observation until six months later, meetings every week. Preparatory practices can be written about. First meeting, you can notice the shapes of material objects, you can notice sounds, you can notice colors, you can notice tension in the body. ATA is a very precise description (we were just told: notice). We learned the ATA part and then later the -T part, ourselves, by doing, by trying. We were never given more unless we showed we were practicing what we were already given. For the first six months new people had to leave meetings early while the others discussed the ~real~ practices. Being given the practices self-remembering and self-observation, is like being given a recipe. Think Colonel Sanders, who never tells anyone his 13 secret spices. But you really only learn by constantly trying to bake cakes. And this links back to Chuang Tzu's Woodwright (story). And this connects to ZD's new physicist guy, Federico Fa ggin, most excellent. "You can know consciousness only in yourself", is a direct quote from Gurdjieff But the purpose of the practices are to save energy and transform energy. Everything is centered around energy. Do you think it's possible that something else could emerge from ATA-T inwardly (rather than 'outward') sensing, absent the minds conclusions clouding the view? I wonder if that was part of the 'advanced' practices. But yes, lots of futility is typically experienced in the journey/path. Joseph Campbell presented that well in his discussions on the Hero with a Thousand Faces, to reveal what's behind the mask. I haven't gotten around to listening to F aggin in full, but got the gist of his descriptions while doing dishes. He's coming to terms with it, and may be able to present it in a way that a larger part of the scientific audience can relate to. Insh'allah let's see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 3, 2024 19:53:24 GMT -5
I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." I might agree, but at some point there's noone or no-thing that needs informing since "informing" means tranferring information. And ultimately there was never informing because there never was an informer versus an informed. That's the crux of the delusion. I talk to the dead every night when they come visit and try to "inform" them that we're merely "imagined." That our separateness, hence the need to talk to each other is a delusion. They take it about as well as Tenka does. They think I'm daft. Imagine that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 20:54:42 GMT -5
I've written about a great deal, map-wise. Almost everything I write, I pause to check experience, and then I write from experience. Sometimes, deep into the weeds, from a map-only, but that usually means from my teacher-as-example. IOW, anything I write is a map, it's the nature of language, words. If you get ATA-T, that's basically a practice. It's virtually identical to sensing, which I was taught at my first meeting, it was called noticing. But it's a preliminary practice, I didn't get the practices self-remembering and self-observation until six months later, meetings every week. Preparatory practices can be written about. First meeting, you can notice the shapes of material objects, you can notice sounds, you can notice colors, you can notice tension in the body. ATA is a very precise description (we were just told: notice). We learned the ATA part and then later the -T part, ourselves, by doing, by trying. We were never given more unless we showed we were practicing what we were already given. For the first six months new people had to leave meetings early while the others discussed the ~real~ practices. Being given the practices self-remembering and self-observation, is like being given a recipe. Think Colonel Sanders, who never tells anyone his 13 secret spices. But you really only learn by constantly trying to bake cakes. And this links back to Chuang Tzu's Woodwright (story). And this connects to ZD's new physicist guy, Federico Fa ggin, most excellent. "You can know consciousness only in yourself", is a direct quote from Gurdjieff But the purpose of the practices are to save energy and transform energy. Everything is centered around energy. But yes, lots of futility is typically experienced in the journey/path. Joseph Campbell presented that well in his discussions on the Hero with a Thousand Faces, to reveal what's behind the mask. I haven't gotten around to listening to F aggin in full, but got the gist of his descriptions while doing dishes. He's coming to terms with it, and may be able to present it in a way that a larger part of the scientific audience can relate to. Insh'allah let's see what happens. . ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 4, 2024 0:03:21 GMT -5
I might agree, but at some point there's noone or no-thing that needs informing since "informing" means tranferring information. And ultimately there was never informing because there never was an informer versus an informed. That's the crux of the delusion. I talk to the dead every night when they come visit and try to "inform" them that we're merely "imagined." That our separateness, hence the need to talk to each other is a delusion. They take it about as well as Tenka does. They think I'm daft. Imagine that. Then call it "surprising", as in, the individuated mind is surprised to notice an absence. I could re-tell a tale involving E' and a different forum many years ago that would exemplify. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 4, 2024 0:48:39 GMT -5
Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. Let me try to translate (for ZD). one (small s self) = tomato. ONE = apple. zazeniac is saying once there is a realization you are in actually, apple, the tomato doesn't disappear. In realization the snake disappears but the rope doesn't. I have my own solution for this seeming conundrum, it's quite simple. Maybe zazeniac can elaborate. ........This is tenka's problem also (with the ND view), how can you say there is no person, I'm right here typing to you? I don't concern myself with this stuff. Just some of it gets caught in my throat and I have to cough it out. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 4, 2024 9:15:15 GMT -5
Do you think it's possible that something else could emerge from ATA-T inwardly (rather than 'outward') sensing, absent the minds conclusions clouding the view? I wonder if that was part of the 'advanced' practices.But yes, lots of futility is typically experienced in the journey/path. Joseph Campbell presented that well in his discussions on the Hero with a Thousand Faces, to reveal what's behind the mask. I haven't gotten around to listening to F aggin in full, but got the gist of his descriptions while doing dishes. He's coming to terms with it, and may be able to present it in a way that a larger part of the scientific audience can relate to. Insh'allah let's see what happens. . ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Welp, you'd have to ask ZD whether or not he agrees with your conclusion about his refusing to consider the 'inward' aspect. It is a dualistic term, obviously, so I'd understand the refusal in certain contexts, and he did practice zazen meditation for 20-30 years or so. We know what the Zennies don't really subscribe to with respect to thought in general, and what satori, kensho, etc refer to (at least theoretically). All systems for 'achieving' realization (like Gurdji's, or Zen) are considered as potential paths through the river of thought... are intended/assumed to be of use. So, is the self-remembering the same as 'first you gotta row a little boat'? Because the YOU/SELF the greatererer literature has been talking about and pointing to is not you/self. And using thought to traverse the thought river can be a dubious endeavor, however well-intended. Is it within the realm of infinite potential? Sure, but stumble one must. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 4, 2024 9:32:52 GMT -5
Then call it "surprising", as in, the individuated mind is surprised to notice an absence. I could re-tell a tale involving E' and a different forum many years ago that would exemplify. Sure. Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that??  ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole.  |
|
